2G N/T hybrid - Project Hybrid Theory

[ilikespeeding]

Ok, so my friend has an old 96 N/T with a rebuilt junkyard motor. He and I came up with an idea for a ghetto hybrid. We plan to use a vtec controller to manage the on/off of the valves and an SAFC to correct fuel flow for injection.



Anyone see any problems that need addressing?

[VelocitàPaola]

What's the point? I follow your schematic, and I know what you're trying to do, but it won't work... You're just adding another stage of energy conversion: from chemical (gasoline) to mechanical (engine rotation) to electrical (alternator/electrical system) back to chemical (hydrogen through electrolysis).

Everything is still ultimately powered by the gasoline... that's one of the problems with switching to a hydrogen economy right now. Furthermore, Energy conversion is never a perfect process, it's always subject to losses, so you're device will probably end up being less efficient than it was in the first place. Even the electrolysis process isn't 100% efficient. Measured efficiency is around 50%-75%, so there's even more losses there.

Additionally, you would've probably wanted to separate the products of electrolysis (with oxygen being vented or stored elsewhere) to prevent premature combustion and better control over the air/fuel mix.

If you really wanted to do something innovative, remove the transmission and replace it with about a 150-200amp/75V electric generator. Run 00ga orange wires to the trunk and install a little controller circuitry and a bank of about 30 deep cycle batteries: configured in clusters of five in series, with those clusters connected in parallel.

Now remove the axles, machine new ones or modify the old splines and attach each to a large 75V 3.5kW electric motor. There, you've pretty much just replaced your mechanical transmission with an electric one. Is converting mechanical to electrical and back to mechanical energy more efficient? No... but, if you can manage to charge your car every night, you'll save quite a bit in gasoline by relying solely on the batteries of the majority of your commuting. You should only need to start the gasoline engine in your car when the batteries run low.

Depending on where you live, the energy could still be coming from fossil fuels somewhere down the line (a lot of electrical power plants still use coal and oil), but if you're lucky, it could be coming from a cleaner source such as nuclear (like where I live).

[tkelly27]

Something like 80% of the energy used in the united states comes from fossil fuels.

You're trying to invent the perpetual motion machine man. The best way to save the environment, your car, and your money is to purchase a bicycle, only take your car when you have to (on long trips preferably), and maintain it well when you do drive it.

Have you ever done the hydrolysis experiment? I have, and I don't think you can produce the volume necessary to support a running engine. Way back in high school we did it, and after 5 minutes all we got (volume wise) was a test tube full that was enough to make a small pop when you put a match under it.

[VelocitàPaola]

Originally Posted by tkelly27

Have you ever done the hydrolysis experiment? I have, and I don't think you can produce the volume necessary to support a running engine. Way back in high school we did it, and after 5 minutes all we got (volume wise) was a test tube full that was enough to make a small pop when you put a match under it.

I don't think he's looking to use solely hydrogen, but rather replace a portion of the gasoline... either way, I think you're right: the process wouldn't produce enough volume of hydrogen to be effective unless he was dealing with a large electric charge.

By the way, I don't know what I was thinking... I said "electrolysis" in one sentence and "hydrolysis" in another; the process is called electrolysis.

[turboglenn]

This could be a cool project, i'm gonna stay tuned on this one. I love to see people trying the unconventional!

[ilikespeeding]

Since the alternator runs all the time, no horsepower would be lost. I think you're right, I'll add a stepup coil to 18 v. I'm also changing from one Vtec controller and SAFC to just a VAFC. Also, I'll tie the relay into the power supply to the power nodes. That'll prevent pressure buildup and flame control. Flame control is also helped by the 1 way valve in the pressure line and maybe a blow-off coupler. I'm not trying to add power...I'm trying to remove fuel for better gas mileage.

We also need to find out the flash point of hydrogen and oxygen.

[VelocitàPaola]

:: smacks head ::

I really appreciate your spirit, but this isn't the type of thing that an amateur can accomplish. I'm not trying to be mean, I'm just playing devil's advocate... allow me to blow a few more holes through your theory and design:

1. Just because the alternator is running "all the time" doesn't mean power isn't being lost. It takes power to spin the pulley on the alternator. In fact, it takes more power to spin the pulley on the alternator as more amperage is pulled: it's a proportional relationship. Mind you, the power to spin the alternator comes from the engine, which is powered by gasoline.

Like I've been saying, all you're doing is converting energy from one form to another... it all ultimately comes from gasoline. Furthermore, energy conversion takes energy, so this whole endeavor will actually be less efficient than nothing at all. In other words, you will not be using any less gasoline, just more!

2. "Step-up coils" don't exist. There is such a thing as step-up and step-down transformers, but they only work with AC electricity, not DC as what is found in cars. There is also such a thing as a DC-DC converter, which utilizes a charge pump to increase DC voltage in common ratios, but again, they use energy to do so. The laws of physics dictate there is no free energy in the universe. Get used to this concept...

3. Pressure buildup is the least of your worries. You won't be producing nearly enough hydrogen through this 12V or 18V electrolysis to be worried about significant pressurization.

4. Flame control? I would hope that's not a problem... the intake valve should be fully closed before any sources of ignition (i.e. the spark plug) are introduced.

5. The flash point of a liquid substance refers to the lowest temperature required for it to form an ignitable mixture with air. The flash point of hydrogen is -253*C/-423*F: too cold for any oxidizing agents, including oxygen, to be in a gaseous state. The autoignition temperature, on the other hand, is 500*C/932*F. Oxygen itself doesn't have a flash point because combustion refers to the process by which a compound reacts with oxygen; hence oxygen cannot react with itself (other than to form diatomic oxygen from elemental oxygen, which is not combustion).

[ilikespeeding]

Originally Posted by VelocitàPaola

:: smacks head ::

I really appreciate your spirit, but this isn't the type of thing that an amateur can accomplish. I'm not trying to be mean, I'm just playing devil's advocate... allow me to blow a few more holes through your theory and design:

1. Just because the alternator is running "all the time" doesn't mean power isn't being lost. It takes power to spin the pulley on the alternator. In fact, it takes more power to spin the pulley on the alternator as more amperage is pulled: it's a proportional relationship. Mind you, the power to spin the alternator comes from the engine, which is powered by gasoline.

Like I've been saying, all you're doing is converting energy from one form to another... it all ultimately comes from gasoline. Furthermore, energy conversion takes energy, so this whole endeavor will actually be less efficient than nothing at all. In other words, you will not be using any less gasoline, just more!

2. "Step-up coils" don't exist. There is such a thing as step-up and step-down transformers, but they only work with AC electricity, not DC as what is found in cars. There is also such a thing as a DC-DC converter, which utilizes a charge pump to increase DC voltage in common ratios, but again, they use energy to do so. The laws of physics dictate there is no free energy in the universe. Get used to this concept...

3. Pressure buildup is the least of your worries. You won't be producing nearly enough hydrogen through this 12V or 18V electrolysis to be worried about significant pressurization.

4. Flame control? I would hope that's not a problem... the intake valve should be fully closed before any sources of ignition (i.e. the spark plug) are introduced.

5. The flash point of a liquid substance refers to the lowest temperature required for it to form an ignitable mixture with air. The flash point of hydrogen is -253*C/-423*F: too cold for any oxidizing agents, including oxygen, to be in a gaseous state. The autoignition temperature, on the other hand, is 500*C/932*F. Oxygen itself doesn't have a flash point because combustion refers to the process by which a compound reacts with oxygen; hence oxygen cannot react with itself (other than to form diatomic oxygen from elemental oxygen, which is not combustion).

I never did say that I knew what I was talking about...that's why Im here. I actually do appriciate your criticism...it helps me pre-engineer this whole thing instead of figuring stuff out as I go. Please dont get me wrong. I hear you loud and clear...it isnt efficient. It wont be worth it. I just would like to be able to say that I did it. Worst comes to worse...we'll just pull the ground and go back to the stock fuel map.


The pressure build up is more of an insurance thing. We dont know what we're doing here or what we're playing with. Surely during testing, there will be some backfires and I'd rather not have to rebuild the whole system. 900 F gives me plenty of room to breathe. The oxygen we're producing is pure O2...which can break apart to CO2 with free radicals and byproducts of flame. Energy is released and that can damage things. So, while it cant burn, it can still hurt.

What we need to do now is figure out the amount of hydrogen and oxygen we can produce. In theoritical electrolysis, 2x as much hydrogen is produced as oxygen. From there, we need to come up with a good air to fuel ratio of hydrogen to oxygen to create the most power at a stable temp. From there, we just calculate how much fuel to remove.

As for the volume arguement, electrolysis is more efficient when heated. We decided to remove the sunroof infavor of a 20w solar panel to provide heat for the water. While yes, there is no free energy. You can substitue voltage for current or change resistance.

[VelocitàPaola]

Ok... as long as you know it's a worthless endeavour that'll only decrease your mileage. You might as well take a look here:

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogen...fs/fcm03r0.pdf

It states the stoichiometric point for a hydrogen/air mix is about 2.4:1 by volume. That's roughly 0.6L of hydrogen every full combustion cycle. At 3,000RPM, you're consuming 900L of hydrogen per minute... assuming you're trying to run solely on hydrogen. That's a lot of hydrogen.

If anything using just the solar panel to do the electrolysis would marginally add efficiency rather than deplete it. If you're really intent on finding a useful solution, I suggest using a solar array to charge your car battery... that way the alternator does less work, which requires less mechanical energy, and in turn uses less gasoline.

[ilikespeeding]

I found it to be 34:1 or higher:

"This means that for complete combustion, 34 pounds of air are required for every pound of hydrogen. This is much higher than the 14.7:1 A/F ratio re-quired for gasoline."

"Because of hydrogen’s wide range of flammability, hydrogen engines can run on A/F ratios of anywhere from 34:1 (stoichiometric) to 180:1."

That means, at 50 lpm of hydrogen, I can potentially run at 90:1 (since half of the biproduct is already oxygen). I can quench 4500 lpm of air...

[VelocitàPaola]

That's by mass, not by volume. The volume figure relies on the number of moles, and in turn number of molecules, of both air and fuel. Stoichiometry is based on the number of molecules in a given reaction... the AFR numbers in that article are just skewed to make the outcome seem more impressive.

[ilikespeeding]

Volumetric and molecular stoichiometric ratio for gasoline is 14.7:1? I've found a few sites that say stoichiometric efficiency of gasoline by weight is 14.7:1

My goal here isn't to argue with you...I dont want to seem like Im questioning you. Im just trying to understand this the best I can so Im suited to actually make something worth a damn. The way I come across isn't always as respectful as I mean it to.

Also, very little power can be made with hydrogen vs gasoline. 1 cubic foot of hydrogen creates about 5 bhp; that's before engine resistance and heat losses are added. So, maybe 2 or 3 BHP per cubic foot of hydrogen. That's not shit. I dont even think the car will idle. However, an intresting note is that this will cool the motor. Maybe I can run the car hella lean? Maybe like 22:1 before hydrogen is added.

Another thing to consider is how the O2 sensor is going to read the exhaust from the extra water in the exhaust.

[VelocitàPaola]

I know you're not arguing just for the sake of arguing. Like I said, I'm just playing devil's advocate so you don't waste your time pursuing a worthless endeavor.

The stoichiometric point of gasoline by volume is around 8:1; still far less than hydrogen by volume. That's one of the key problems of hydrogen fuel cells: storing enough fuel for the car to travel reasonable distances.

[ilikespeeding]

Allthough, I might be on something with hydrogen in a gas motor. It's burns cold, takes very little oxygen from the motor to burn, adds power and volume, and is an oxidizer. It's like super nitrous.

On the other hand tho, I'm still a stubborn asshole about this thing and I want a hydrogen hybrid.

On another note, volume can't rely on mols. A mol is simply a count of molecules present. It's a measurement specific to what's being measured. So, one mol of air wouldn't be equal to one mol of gas in anyway. Not in volume, concentration, or weight. Simply, each mol would have x amount of molecules present.

So, each figure would be different. You can measure mols by weight...something an O2 sensor cannot do. An O2 sensor can pick up on the amount of resistance present and tell how much oxygen is present in that space. AKA Volume.

[VelocitàPaola]

Your theories are fraught with pseudoscience. The numbers of moles of a substance can easily be correlated to volume through the ideal gas law (PV=nRT).

Oxygen sensors work by Nernst cells, which output a voltage (not variable resistance like a potentiometer or rheostat) according to the amount of oxygen in the exhaust stream relative to the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere. It's a ratio, so the unit (liters, grams, etc.) is immaterial.

Hydrogen is not an oxidizer, it's a reducer. Hydrogen needs oxygen (the oxidizer) to combust and produce power. Most hydrogen used in prototype hydrogen cars is pure diatomic hydrogen. The car doesn't need to carry an oxidizer as it uses oxygen from the atmosphere. Your design, on the other hand, produces both hydrogen and oxygen. Useful for space travel, but not much else... when the two elements recombine and release their energy, you're only extracting about 70-90% of the original energy you spent to separate them in the first place.

[ilikespeeding]

Originally Posted by VelocitàPaola

Your theories are fraught with pseudoscience. The numbers of moles of a substance can easily be correlated to volume through the ideal gas law (PV=nRT).

Oxygen sensors work by Nernst cells, which output a voltage (not variable resistance like a potentiometer or rheostat) according to the amount of oxygen in the exhaust stream relative to the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere. It's a ratio, so the unit (liters, grams, etc.) is immaterial.

Hydrogen is not an oxidizer, it's a reducer. Hydrogen needs oxygen (the oxidizer) to combust and produce power. Most hydrogen used in prototype hydrogen cars is pure diatomic hydrogen. The car doesn't need to carry an oxidizer as it uses oxygen from the atmosphere. Your design, on the other hand, produces both hydrogen and oxygen. Useful for space travel, but not much else... when the two elements recombine and release their energy, you're only extracting about 70-90% of the original energy you spent to separate them in the first place.

You might have misunderstood me. I meant that the oxygen biproduct of electrolysis is an oxidizer. At 180:1, the hydrogen is bearly a reducer. You could throw hydogen into the combustion cycle and not even worry about adding air or subtracting fuel. Even at a 2:1 ratio of hydrogen to oxygen, you're still producing far more oxygen than it takes to burn the hydrogen. You are definately correct that simply reburning the hydrogen would be for a loss. However, you're not just remaking water. Now, you're making half as much water, twice as many hydrocarbons, and ruining every O2 sensor you have. The hydrogen will reburn into a different configuration than water simply because one atom of carbon is going to be a lot easier to come by than two atoms of hydrogen.

Another problem is that you cant use the ideal gas law for a liquid. The volume change under different temps is greatly different. Even if you were to argue that you're measuring fuel after combustion, the exhaust if filled with far too many free radicals and different mixtures of biproducts of combustion that vary by altitude, combustion quality, timing, engine load, air content, fuel content, and other random shit to even begin to predict the ratio of fuel to air in mols. Volume is easily measured however....450ccs...2.0 liters...1.5 bar...ect...To further back up this idea, the pdf directly compairs the 34:1 air to fuel of hydrogen to the 14.7:1 air to fuel of gasoline.


Upon more research, you are correct on O2 sensor. Apparently a chemical reation takes place to make an output voltage. I must have been thinking about something else.

[VelocitàPaola]

Barely a reducer? It either is, or it isn't. Also, if you're adding hydrogen in such minute quantities, again, what's the point?

You're wrong about carbon being more accessible than hydrogen. Don't forget, hydrocarbons consist of a backbone of carbon-carbon single bonds flanked by hydrogens on all extra valence positions. Of course, double and triple bonds take away one or two valence electrons, but either way, the majority of the atoms involved in combustion are hydrogen. For a standard octane molecule, eighteen hydrogen atoms dominate the eight carbon atoms. Add a molecule of water, and now you have eight carbon atoms, one oxygen atom and twenty hydrogen atoms.

The main products of this reaction, in descending order, will be water, carbon compounds (carbon dioxide and monoxide, not necessarily hydrocarbons), and nitrogen oxides. The only hydrocarbons remaining will be from unburnt gasoline.

You kind of lost me on the rest of your argument: you must be thinking of something else because calculating the ratio of air to fuel in moles is trivial. Free radicals are apart of the bonding process... just because there is a free radical involved in 2H2 + O2, doesn't mean the result isn't 2H2O. Air content is a relatively consistent ratio of gases, and altitude and load only determine how much air is in the mix. Timing has nothing to do with it as the valves are closed during ignition. Furthermore, gasoline is highly volatile and readily converts into a gas upon atomization -- thus it's still covered by the ideal gas law. Out of all that, the only two variables are the amount of air and amount of gasoline, i.e. the factors in AFR.